Why didn’t Fr. Feeney go to Rome?

I believe he didn’t go because when the authorities in Rome handling the matter refused to give him the reason for the summons, as required by canon law, they demonstrated that they weren’t trustworthy and operating in good faith.  And the reason that the authorities in Rome handling the case didn’t give him a reason is because they were too embarrassed to say: you are being summoned to Rome because you are preaching Outside the Church There is No Salvation and that only baptized Catholics can be saved! It was on September 24, 1952 that Father Feeney addressed a long, detailed letter to Pius XII.  The letter went unanswered.  But one month later (in a letter dated Oct. 25, 1952) Cardinal Pizzardo of the Holy Office summoned him to Rome.  On October 30, 1952, Father Feeney sent a reply to Pizzardo, requesting a statement of the charges against him – as required by Canon Law.  On Nov. 22, 1952, Pizzardo replied:

“Your letter of 30th October clearly shows that you are evading the issue… You are to come to Rome immediately where you will be informed of the charges lodged against you… If you do not present yourself… before the 31st December this act of disobedience will be made public with the canonical penalties… The Apostolic Delegate has been authorized to provide for the expenses of your journey.”

On Dec. 2, 1952, Father Feeney responded:

“Your Eminence seems to have misconstrued my motives in replying to your letter of October 25, 1952.  I had presumed that your first letter was to serve as a canonical citation to appear before Your Sacred Tribunal.  As a citation, however, it is fatally defective under the norms of Canon 1715 especially in that it did not inform me of the charges against me.  This canon requires that the citation contain at least a general statement of the charges.  Under the norms of Canon 1723 any proceedings based on a citation so substantially defective are subject to a complaint of nullity.”

This exchange of letters between Father Feeney and Pizzardo is very interesting and valuable for our discussion.  First of all, it shows that Father Feeney’s desire was to operate within the confines of the law, whereas Pizzardo and those at the Vatican showed a blatant disregard for law, even in the manner of summoning him to Rome.  Canon Law stipulates that a man summoned to Rome must be informed at least in general of the charges lodged against him, and Father Feeney cited the relevant canons.  Pizzardo and his cohorts consistently ignored these laws.  And that is why the subsequent penalty of excommunication leveled against Fr. Feeney for disobedience in not coming to Rome was “null and void.” Related: Outside The Church There Is No Salvation And Refuting Baptism Of Desire